The Downs are for people, not for cars!

News & Events

Bristolians may know that our famous ‘Clifton Downs’ were bequeathed to all the people of Bristol (including Totterdowners!) and that The Downs Committee has a duty under the 1861 Downs Act to keep the Downs ‘open and unenclosed’ for the people of Bristol to enjoy.

This duty was violated by a meeting, that appeared to be held in secret, at which a 20-year parking proposal was discussed and agreed. Read the inspiring story of a successful people’s challenge below.

__________________________________________________

Successful end to group’s High Court zoo parking challenge

Downs for People (DfP) is celebrating success in its High Court challenge to the grant of a 20-year licence for zoo parking on the Downs

Summary

In a settlement out of court, the defendants – the Downs Committee and Bristol City Council – have given a legally binding undertaking that they will never again set aside land on the Downs for parking for activities taking place elsewhere.

The defendants have agreed to pay up to £72,000 towards DfP’s legal costs, twice as much as the maximum award if the case had gone to court.  Legal action would not have been necessary if the Downs Committee (half Bristol City Councillors and half Merchant Venturers) had listened to DfP’s warnings that zoo parking on the Downs was unlawful.  DfP is calling upon the Society of Merchant Venturers to pay at least half the costs of the action.

As part of the out-of-court settlement, DfP have agreed that Bristol Zoo may continue to use the land off Ladies Mile for parking until 1 October 2022 and the North car park outside the Zoo’s main entrance until the end of 2023. The North car park is on land that is part of the Downs. The defendants have  undertaken not to make arrangements to allow people to park there for non-Downs activities after the end of 2023.

Statement

Speaking for Downs for People, Susan Carter said:

“We are delighted with this outcome but dismayed that we have had to go to court to achieve it. The Downs Committee has a duty under the 1861 Downs Act to keep the Downs ‘open and unenclosed’ for the people of Bristol to enjoy. This expensive legal action would have been avoided if the Committee had listened to our warnings that zoo parking on the Downs off Ladies Mile was unlawful and that decisions to allow it could be challenged in the courts.  It was obvious to us that land roped off for use by more than six hundred zoo visitors’ cars was not ‘open and unenclosed’, nor available for recreation.  

It was never our intention to cause harm to the Zoo, only to encourage them to develop alternative arrangements for bringing visitors from outside the city. This would have happened years ago if the Downs Committee had not allowed the easy option of parking on the grass. We are sad that COVID is forcing the Zoo to relocate to their Wild Place site at Cribbs Causeway. We understand their need to maintain the current parking arrangements for the limited time during which the Clifton site remains open. 

We had to continue our legal action after the Zoo’s closure was announced to ensure that there was no danger of the Downs being used as a car park for businesses and other activities elsewhere.  

We have attended the Downs Committee’s meetings for many years and offered to discuss the issues. We have been ignored.  It seems that Merchant Venturers react only to riots. They treat with disdain those who act through proper channels.  After the Colston statue toppled in June last year, the Society of Merchant Venturers issued a statement promising to examine their role within the city and how they collaborate with others. Yet there has been no response to anything we have written or said to them about the Downs Committee.   Merchant Venturer members have even declared that the Committee is not subject to the rules governing public bodies, despite being set up by Act of Parliament.  

City councillors have not been much better. They are supposed to be guided by the Nolan principles of openness and accountability. Yet our reasonable requests for information about licences for zoo parking have gone unanswered.  The defendants did not disclose basic details of the latest licence until ordered to do so by a judge. 

Vast costs have been incurred in bringing this case.  As well as agreeing to give us up to £72,000, the defendants will have their own legal fees to pay. These are likely to be even higher than our costs because they engaged two top QCs to argue against our more junior barrister.

Under the Downs Act, the Society of Merchant Venturers is not obliged to pay anything towards the upkeep of the Downs, even though Merchant Venturers are proud to claim ownership of half of them.  Having played a leading part in negotiating the licence, we think the Society of Merchant Venturers should contribute at least half the costs of this unnecessary court action. It is not right that the costs should fall only on council tax payers.

We are most grateful to all those who have helped us fight this case. Let this be a warning to those who would trample on the rights of ordinary Bristolians.  Many people contributed to our escalating legal bills.  Particular thanks are due to our biggest donor, the Open Spaces Society, for invaluable advice as well as money, and to the Bristol Civic Society.   And we are enormously grateful for the guidance of our experienced legal team, notably Philip Petchey, our patient and brilliant barrister.”

Background

The terms of the settlement

1.   A copy of the order that has been agreed is attached.  It was approved and signed by the Hon Mr Justice Henshaw on Wednesday 12 May. ( Due to an administrative error, a copy did not reach Downs for People until 19 May).

2. This is a discontinuance order so that legal action can be resumed if necessary. The undertakings are  binding on the defendants: they can be sued for contempt of court if they breach them.

Downs for People

3.  A group of concerned individuals set up Downs for People (DfP) in 2013 to co-ordinate action against zoo parking on the Downs off Ladies Mile.  There have been campaigns against the parking since at least 1996 (see para 7 below).  One key DfP member has been involved from the beginning.

Downs Committee

4.  The Downs Committee was established under the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861. It consists of the Lord Mayor (who chairs), six other councillors, the Master of the Merchant Venturers, and six other Merchant Venturers.  Under the Act the Downs must be managed so that they “shall for ever hereafter remain open and unenclosed, and as a place for the public resort and recreation of the citizens and inhabitants of Bristol”.

Nolan principles of public life

5. The seven principles that holders of public office must follow were set out by a committee chaired by  Lord Nolan in 1995 :

Selflessness: to act solely in terms of the public interest.

Integrity: to avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

Objectivity: to act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

Accountability:  to be accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

Openness: to act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

Honesty: to be truthful.

Leadership: to exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

History of zoo parking on the Downs off Ladies Mile

6.   With licences from the Downs Committee, Bristol Zoo has been parking cars on the Downs off Ladies Mile since the late 1960s, when parking was first allowed for six days a year. The site has space for up to 700 cars, while the zoo’s two permanent car parks have spaces for only 340.

7.  Campaigning groups have long protested about this use of the Downs.  In 1996, when the zoo sought a licence for 102 days, they pointed out that planning permission was needed for activities on the Downs other than the established recreational use. The City Council took enforcement action in 1997 against the Downs Committee and the zoo, requiring them to seek planning permission.  Since then, seven temporary planning permissions have been granted. These have steadily reduced the number of days on which the site may be used, to 30 days in 2019 (when the zoo used it for 22 days). 

Downs Committee licensing

8.  The recent history of Downs Committee licences for zoo parking is confused. From 2017 Downs for People tried to find out what was happening because the last licence had apparently expired. The group learned at the end of May 2020, in an updated response to a Freedom of Information Act request, that the zoo had been granted a licence in secret that allowed it to park for another 20 years, from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2039. The licence was for as many days a year as other constraints permitted – with up to 28 days a year suggested initially, in line with what the zoo believed were the current planning controls.

9.  Downs for People assumed that the Downs Committee had granted the licence.  It emerged in August that this was not the case.  The Society of Merchant Venturers granted a licence to Bristol City Council and Bristol City Council granted a sub-licence to the zoo. The Downs Committee authorised the grant of a licence.

Timeline of the judicial review process and zoo closure

10.  The judicial review process has been as follows:

  • August 2020.   Downs for People lodged judicial review proceedings in the High Court to get the licence quashed.   The defendants were Bristol City Council and the Downs Committee, with the Society of Merchant Venturers and the Bristol, Clifton and West of England Zoological Society named as interested parties.
  •  27 November 2020.   Bristol Zoo announced that it would be closing its Clifton site.   Although closure would bring an end to zoo parking on the Downs, Downs for People remained very concerned. The City Council and the Downs Committee would not agree that parking on the Downs was lawful only when related to activity on the Downs. They argued that they had a power to use any part of the Downs as a car park at their discretion. 
  • January 2021.    Downs for People submitted its grounds for challenge to the High Court.  The defendants submitted reasons why those grounds should be resisted.
  • 22 March 2021.   His Honour Judge Cotter QC gave permission for the case to go to court to examine:
    •  the claim by Downs for People that the Downs Committee had no power to licence car parking for activities not on the Downs because such parking was contrary to the terms of the 1861 Act.
    • the claim by the defendants that decisions by the Downs Committee were not subject to review by the courts.

In relation to claim (i), the judge made it clear that when looking at non-Downs related activities there was no difference in law between a zoo and a supermarket.

  • 15  April 2021.  His Honour Judge Cotter QC listed the case to be heard on Thursday 13 May in Bristol’s biggest courtroom so that members of the public could attend.
  • 12 May 2021.    Agreement was reached on an out-of-court settlement. An order agreed by the parties was approved by the Hon Mr Justice Henshaw and issued by the High Court.

Financial support

11.  An order by the Court in November set a limit on the legal costs that could be recovered by the parties in this case: £35,000 by Downs for People if it won and £10,000 by Bristol City Council and the Downs Committee if they won.

12.  Downs for People faced total costs of about £75,000 even if it won.  (Its costs should now be less as the case has not gone to court). It sought funding from organisations and individuals personally, and crowdfunding through the CrowdJustice site at https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/downs–for-people/

13.  The group raised about £14,500 in total, about half from organisations and half from individuals.

Defendants’ costs

14.  Without intervention by others, the defendants’ costs will be shared by Bristol City Council and the Downs Committee.  The Committee has set aside a significant sum from its reserves. These have been built up with income from events on the Downs and contributions by Bristol City Council.   Council tax payers would therefore bear most of the costs.

Legal advice

15.  The national Open Spaces Society (see https://www.oss.org.uk/)  guided Downs for People until it appointed a barrister and solicitors. The Society continued to provide useful advice thereafter.  

16.  Philip Petchey, a barrister from Francis Taylor Building, (see https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/barristers/philip-petchey)  agreed to represent Downs for People on very generous terms. His knowledge and experience have been invaluable.

Contact For further information contact Susan Carter at susancarter231@gmail.com  or tel 0117 924 7872. ((Mobile 07966 348985, with poor reception at home).